P. v. Santoyo
Appellant Jesus Salvador Santoyo was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of a short-barreled shotgun ( 12020, subd. (a)(1)). He appeals the doubling of his sentence under the Three Strikes law ( 667, subd. (d)(1), 1170.12, subd. (b)(1)) based on a prior conviction for assault under section 245, subdivision (a)(1). That section can support a conviction either for an assault with a deadly weapon, which qualifies as a serious felony under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(31) and thus a strike, or with force likely to produce great bodily injury, which does not qualify as a strike under that section. Santoyo contends his section 245 assault conviction did not qualify as a strike because there was no explicit finding that the assault was a serious felony and that any implied finding of a serious felony was not supported by substantial evidence, which consisted of an abstract of judgment stating that his conviction was for assault w/deadly weapn. Santoyo also requests our review of the trial courts order of an in camera hearing pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Santoyo